David Cage is wrong: Violence is essential

Destructoid: "Our perception of reality is guided by our senses. The pavement impacts my feet, the grass crunches as I walk upon it, the sky surrounds my area of vision, and the bayou across the way brings about a strong scent of human feces. I couldn't be anywhere else, even if I wanted.

If I were to put a gun in my hand and fire aimlessly at the houses, would I become even more immersed in my environment -- that is, would I become even more aware and emotionally invested in the current moment? Yes, I would. And so it is with videogames."
(Culture, David Cage)

In the same way that not all films need violence to be entertaining, Cage is bringing about what should be more developers attempting to put a stronger emphasis on character and mise-en-scène and a stronger emotional arc, rather than violence for the sake of rushing our emotions in stereotypical and instinctual fashion.

I'm interested in games that challenge my emotions, thoughts and general intelligence, not just my trigger-finger instinct.

He isn't against violence. He basically says that there has to be a motive behind ones action. Take for example the violence in COD games and compare it to the one in The Last of Us. Both use violence but The Last of Us takes a more mature approach because the violence adds to the story in oppose to a shoot em' up FPS that the objective is to run and kill. In all accounts I strongly agree with Cage. It's nice seeing a game evoking the same type of emotion a film gives because it blurring the lines between video games and movies more. That being said I do enjoy games that I'm able to just have fun and enjoy.

As far as I know, 98% of games have some or violence in them. Mario punching, spinning, and stomping on enemies is VIOLENCE! Unless you're playing Tetris or a puzzle game of the same nature...then it's not violent.

Keeping more to the topic, I disagree with David Cage wanting games to reflect real life. Why? Cause I think that most gamers play games as an ESCAPE from real life. Games shouldn't aim to mimic real life, but give players different experiences away from the shackles of reality. I don't want to play a game where I'm taking care of a baby or going to work or school. I'd rather play a game where I fight dragons or pilot a mech to save the land/world.

Gamers play games to escape THEIR life. Wouldn't mind reading, watching movies, or play video games regarding real life issues or scenarios.honestly the more real the story is the more immerse I get because it becomes relatable. That being said no one minds having other worlds or dimensions to play in too. But I agree to the extent that some not all developers should tackle down more realistic issues. Variety doesn't hurt.

I think Dave wanted to say that don't put violence to just surprise people or just for fun. Make it meaningful. Same with the other things...

Some of you guys understood him wrong. Or i did. He says that gaming could be better and he put his thoughts so why not taking the good stuff ?. He's not completly right or wrong. Just accept the good points. Gaming really need to grow up. Grow up means evolve but still accepting the games like call of duty. Support the developers that try new things and hard working more then casual games that do the same thing over and over again. I don't see it wrong to play call of duty if you have fun playing it but don't ignore the other great games because you and the good developers will lose. You will eventually will get bored of call of duty. I am one of these people that loved call of duty but now i can't stand even watch someone play it. It's getting old for me..

"If I were to put a gun in my hand and fire aimlessly at the houses, would I become even more immersed in my environment -- that is, would I become even more aware and emotionally invested in the current moment? Yes, I would. And so it is with videogames."

That's without doubt one of the most ignorant and naive views I've read in a very long time. Without context, everything is meaningless. Firing a gun has got nothing to do with inspiring our senses, nor does it offer anything that puts us in the moment. It would be very easy to prove this point. Build an environment out of blank white textures, have a fixed camera angle and ask someone to fire off a few virtual rounds at that blank wall. He/she would feel nothing, in fact he/she would probably look puzzled.

The reason for this is because no matter what you do in the real world or in a video game, there HAS to be context. The moment relies heavily on that context, be it war, revenge or any other emotion that the scene requires. It's not the firing of the bullet that places you there, it's the reason you fire that bullet... and this is what Cage is getting at.

Conflict is the one ingredient that ALL entertainment requires, from films to books to games; without conflict the story would be uninteresting. The problem with developers is that they have interpreted that 'conflict' too literally and offered gamers the shallowest possible option: violence.

What Cage wants, and Naughty Dog for that matter, is to offer the gamer the same depth of meaning in a game as there is in a film or book. Conflict can be many things to many people, but one thing is doesn't have to be is violence ... that's the easy way out for the lazy writer. It can be conflict within oneself, conflict of interests, conflict of belief, conflict of emotions, conflict of personalities, and none of these conflicts necessitates violence.

Cage isn't saying that violence is not needed when the context requires it, he's saying that it's not necessary to make an exciting scene/film/game. By challenging developers to avoid the obvious, it should (if they are good enough) inspire some TRUE innovations in games and perhaps one day this industry will grow up.

"What Cage wants, and Naughty Dog for that matter, is to offer the gamer the same depth of meaning in a game as there is in a film or book."

Naughty Dog made the Uncharted franchise, those games have nothing to do with what cage said. The Last of Us may very well be more dramatic and have a much deeper meaning to the violence within the game but to just say Naughty Dog in general is totally contradictory to David Cage's philosophy and how he wants games to be made. The Uncharted games had waves and waves of enemies that the player shot with no emotion.

Violence can be used in a way to make the game more immersive, just like in the movies. David Cage was attacking games like Call of Duty and how the violence has no real meaning to it because the gamer is desensitized early on because that's all there is.

He's a ps fan so he couldn't help himself. Problem with all this film and book crap is all the information you get is processed in line order. Games have interactive segments which is what makes them games.

How do you turn

"It can be conflict within oneself, conflict of interests, conflict of belief, conflict of emotions, conflict of personalities, and none of these conflicts necessitates violence."

into a game without the doing it in cutscene form? If you make it cutscene form its no longer a game its a movie.

And thats what david cage's games(interactive movie) are all about. Gameplay is nowhere near other games. I want people to give me some fun ways to play these personal conflicts

psa: Even COD gives you a reason to go hard. Such and such just bombed the country. Nothing else is needed! Now for dramatic effect they could show your family getting bombed and thats the motivation for the player to go into action.

"The necessity of violence for the sake of immersion"?? This guy's a dope. The only way he can be properly immersed is if his game is violent? Says a hell of a lot about this industry. Totally brainwashed. #1. You can't just irresponsibly load your game with violence just for the sake of more and more entertainment. Sure it makes you more aware of your surroundings in the game- makes you pay close attention to them, but it's possible to be immersed a game world without such intense stimulation. I often find myself just sort of walking around, panning the camera and soaking up the sights in games, I love that shit. This guy thinks he's speaking with clarity, when really he's just played one to many violent games to be able to properly conceive and appreciate games that aren't mindlessly violent. Like my friend, good guy, but he's played so much CoD that he just CAN'T appreciate any other fps', it's like this weird mental block.

He also makes so many fallacious arguments about games being art. The interactive aspects of a game are as much an art as sports are. It's elements like music, visual design, storytelling and film that imbue games with an artistic feel. The interactive element can become an art form depending on how it interacts with those elements, but most games' gameplay have very little connection and are purely based on skill, challenge, victory and reward, like sports.

There's nothing wrong with violence in games, so long as it's intelligently done and has a point, not when it's fetishized, mindless and stupid.

You become immersed in a game world by interacting with it, and there's an infinity of ways to do that- an infinity of ways that are more effective and interesting than violence. You don't need to shoot at it and murder it to be immersed in it, unless you're a psycho killer.

This guy is even more pretentious and arrogant than David Cage (and that's a particular hard achievement!)

Cage doesnt want a game without violence. He wants a game where you get a gun and the game makes you wonder why you have the gun, how you'll use it, what will happen when you'll have to point it at someone and pull the trigger. That excitement, that fear and regret. Not the game where having a gun and shooting people is routine and its a simple gameplay mechanic.

Killing a human being is probably one of the hardest decisions in life however, it's the most common and done thing in video games. Few games have reproduce the feeling of actually killing someone.

He's just against the arcade play (which most games nowadays still use, kill enemies, clear area, move on), which is kinda stupid but I understand him since he has his point of view and goal within the industry.

How about we respect Cage and his thoughts? Someone that has some new and fresh ideas for the industry and everyone bashs him? Truth, he might not be the best dev with the best games around, but it's still an accomplishement.

Tbh, and this is my opinion, the most immersive moments in video games are the ones you don't do nothing or do something meaningful. Like holding Yordas hand by yourself, helping an unknown partner in Journey or just exploring a Nepalese village. Those are the moments where you don't ask how, but why. I want more of those moments.